Main Page Contact Register Log In

Saying that we need to justify implementing "random features" when the feature is as ubiquitous as dates is putting the burden of proof on the wrong side. You're basically saying "we have to reconstruct everything from first principles". That is a bad design principle. Human beings learn based on what other human beings have found works.

If you copy succesfull works without understanding how the thing that you copy accomplishes the good thing that it does were it was copied from you will get stupid unthought solutions.

I am not interested in forming a burden of proof, but I would like to note that a simple mention that a feature is wanted doesn't form a burden to implement it either (althought I guess this owuld ordinarily be handled by silently just not implementing the feature).

I thought that the reflective activity of looking at the want more clearly would not be that much additional burden (and in fact would interesting personal content about the website). Get that people don't always elaborate on their wants but I am giving that prompt so people that know how to form those know that people capable of recieving them are paying attention. That is an unexplained need for a feature has lower chance of getting implemented than one that has a associated use case filed along with it.
Replies (1)